“The president is going go act,” said Biden, who is conducting meetings all week on gun control. “There are executive orders, executive action that can be taken. We haven’t decided what that is yet, but we’re compiling it all.”

I’m not saying not to worry. This guy doesn’t think you have the right to own guns. There is a perceived crisis and he’s not going to let it go to waste. Of course it’s right to worry.

But I would like to know what they are proposing, to calibrate my level of outrage properly. Will I be ready to march on Washington? Or just be annoyed at more of the same nonsense? Time will tell.

This is from the same mindset that believes he can improve auto mileage by merely decreeing it. And thus it was so.
He can ban all he wants, but from a practical standpoint how in all of Hell’s creation does he think he will implement it? This all posturing for the believers and deigned to divert attention from our real problem. It’s the economy, estupido!

Whenever there is a crisis, the left is compelled to act as if the crisis occurred because something is dreadfully wrong and it is up to them to do something. It gives them validation and confirmation that we need them to make it better. It doesn’t matter if there isn’t an essential problem to fix but it is a crisis and we all know that translates to opportunity.

An executive order tightening up gun control is a much easier process generating quicker rewards and positive feedback than tackling the issue of federal debt. Instant gratification always takes priority to the long, hard work of real problem solving, especially if one is unsure of exactly how to problem solve in the first place.

Meanwhile, the Korean shooter up at Oakland, is getting the ‘Loughner’ treatment, they’ll eventually try him, but not before dissasociating
the act from the thought behind it. This is how
they can bring Gifford back, despite the fact that
the loathsome Dupnik, made this atrocity possible,

I think it is very bad for that nice Mr President to be surrounded by all those nasty guns. We should demand that he be safely allowed to live his daily life in one of those “gun free zones” that we are able to enjoy. To be fair, of course.

“I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.”

and note that obedience to orders is governed by regulations & the UCMJ. illegal orders are just that.
i predict that Ear Leader will find that there are more Oathkeepers under arms than he has quislings to staff his Einsatzgruppen, should he go full stupid.

oh wow Tacos Manzano is right across from where geico sends cars to get fixed I’ve sat there waiting with friends usually early in the morning looking at that place thinking i need to come back and try it but i never have

Here’s the problem: In 1776 “they” had muskets. We had muskets. Today, “they” have: M1A2 Abrams main battle tanks, Bradley Infantry Fighting Vehicles (Army), precision ship-to-shore cruise missiles (Navy), F-15Es capable of dropping more explosive weight PER JET than any WWII strategic bomber on a target less than a foot in diameter (Air Force). And that’s just for starters. Tactical nukes, anyone?

So, what are the chances of citizens standing up to a regime that is more than willing to unleash those systems on anyone even considering resisting? Moreover, what are the chances of the operators of those systems saying, “No, I will not fire on my fellow citizens” should the Commander-in-Chief instruct them
to do so? I was in the military for 26 years and I can’t definitively answer that last question. But, I’m going to run a little poll of my own when I next visit the local Reserve base and ask the gate guard if they’d be willing to assist the local constabulary in confiscating weapons–up to and including shooting those individuals who refuse to surrender their weapons.

Heck, most of today’s large police forces have what are essentially US infantry combat vehicles and “assault” weapons that are REAL assault weapons anyway.

Bottom line: anyone even thinking of resisting will find him or herself so full of holes before they even hit the ground they won’t even have time to realize they’re dead.

So. What do we do? Beats me. But there must be a way.

Are there ways of resisting that slowly weakens the legitimacy of the government who, lets face it, has a practical monopoly on force right now? Can we ostracize and isolate those who would have to apply that force against the people? If you’re a grocer, do not feed them. If you’re a doctor, do not treat them. If you are a lawyer, do not represent them, etc?

Finally, and here’s the HARD part: you have to be prepared to be injured, killed, imprisoned and otherwise have your lives ruined in the defense of your liberties. Are you ready to commit your “…lives, fortunes and Sacred Honor” in that defense?

Second, remember that the armed citizens… the militia if you like… we number in the hundreds of millions. We have vehicles, tools, and technical skills. We are far more well provisioned than, say, the Iraqi insurgency. We are smart, can communicate, can move, and can make and do things.

I don’t think it’s possible to actually defeat us in a war, even though the military has incredibly advanced precision weapons.

I also think that the military would have a mix of reactions to such a hypothetical event. We are the military’s families and friends, particularly the combat arms specialties.

However, I am not confident in our country’s answer to your last question. I think far fewer Americans are willing to sacrifice or commit their personal welfare to the cause of freedom. We are softer, lazier, and more self absorbed… that’s why this country is in trouble in the first place, culturally.

But I don’t think the democrats will go too far on this gun control exercise. They care mostly about power, and gun control would resurrect the GOP.

I think you described it. Not being a military man myself (tried, color blind…) I can’t speak with authority on how our armed forces would react to such an order but I’d bet it would be at the very least a 50/50 split between followers and rebels. That, combined with your afore mentioned civil disobedience and armed insurrection by the masses should give the “followers” pause.

I bet drone hunting is going to become quite the sport in the come years.

an M1A2 Abrams without fuel is a very expensive, very vulnerable bonfire waiting to happen.

an F-15 without fuel, ammo or parts is a hanger queen museum piece.

as Guderian once said, “Before the first shot has been fired, the quartermaster has already decided the outcome of the battle.”

as someone who participated in more than my fair share of LOGPACs, and who understands the logistical processes of the modern US war machine much better than my exalted retired rank might indicate, the nightmare than even a small amount of active resistance would cause should be enough to give any planner pause.

the resources needed to militarize the DOD’s internal LOCs here in the US would likely eat up most, if not all, resources available, leaving precious little for counter-insurgency efforts.

Yes, I apologize, and stand corrected. Technically, there exists evidence (hearsay evidence from a biased source) that Obama believes that people should not have the right to own guns — just as there technically exists evidence that Bush was behind 9/11. For me to suggest otherwise was, bluntly, wrong.

But non-credible “evidence” which doesn’t pass the laugh test probably shouldn’t be used to hang your hat on, and you know it. Particularly in a post where one of your points is about how one shouldn’t jack up a crisis in order to reach a political end. Isn’t making the claim “Obama doesn’t think you have the right to own guns” doing just that? Just who is exploiting reality here?

Here’s the problem: In 1776 “they” had muskets. We had muskets. Today, “they” have: M1A2 Abrams main battle tanks, Bradley Infantry Fighting Vehicles (Army), precision ship-to-shore cruise missiles (Navy), F-15Es capable of dropping more explosive weight PER JET than any WWII strategic bomber on a target less than a foot in diameter (Air Force). And that’s just for starters. Tactical nukes, anyone?

Amazing how we’re supposed to simultaneously believe that the residents of Third-World shitholes can never be subdued by the American military, but the American populace is utterly defenseless in the face of same.

Kman – Obama does not like guns. While claiming to support the Second Amendment he believed Washington D.C.’s gun ban was constitution. In Chicago he believed in prosecuting people for using their guns in self-defense. As a director of the Joyce Foundation from 1994-2002 he funneled $15 million of grants to the most virulent anti-gun groups in the country. Yes, there is more than a little technical evidence he does not believe people should own guns.

The Joyce Foundation, which he cochaired with Bill Ayers, is behind much of the ‘gun registry’ research by the likes of Stephen Hargaten (sic),
I know his actual record on this, as well as his lectures, syllabi at U Chicago, indicate something else, than statements for public consumption.

I recall Chicago arguing famously that we do not have the individual right to bear arms. I just saw Obama on Meet the Press say that Chicago’s approach is the model he envisions.

When Obama was asked if the DC Gun ban violates the second amendment, he refused to say (if Obama believes in an individual right to bear arms, of course he would say the DC ban did violate the constitution).

In 1999, Obama wanted to make it a felony if a law abiding person’s gun was stolen and used in a crime, if the law abider did not ‘secure’ the gun. Apparently these theft victims were asking for it.

In 2001, Obama voted against a bill allowing someone to use a self defense justification to shoot someone in municipalities that ban handguns. That is powerful evidence Obama does not support a “right” by any reasonable definition of the word “right”.

Obama told Brady he was working on gun control under the radar.

I think this all is pretty good corroboration that Obama does not support gun ownership rights.

I do not think Kman’s comparison of this information to 9/11 conspiracy theories is well informed or honest.

I wish Kman would slow down and look into the facts sometimes before he angrily condemns something. It isn’t hard to look up Obama’s various anti gun views over the years. It’s one of the few things he would take a stand on.

Isn’t it possible for a person to (a) believe individuals generally have the right to own guns; AND, AT THE SAME TIME (b) believe there should be limitations on the types of guns, or the use of guns, etc.?

Why is it that when Obama or anybody else advocates something from column b, the hard core gun advocates all cry “He’s after our guns”???

This is where the NRA loses credibility. In point of fact, most responsible and reasonable gun owners can hold the not-all-that-nuanced position that gun ownership is a right, but like ALL rights, that right is subject to reasonable governmental restrictions.

Is there anyone here in that category — someone capable and willing to have a serious discussion about reaosnable gun control restriction (as well as other solutions)? Or has the whole Newtown/mass murder issue devolved into just another chance to bash Obama? Because if it’s the latter — yeah, ok. I get it. You don’t like Obama.

In Chicago he believed in prosecuting people for using their guns in self-defense.

That’s typical of the gut reactions of far too many liberals. Instead of directing their ire at the really bad people, bad things, bad situations, they — in their imitable ass-backwards fashion — become resentful at just the opposite.

Obama is like someone watching a movie who’s cheering on the bad guy. So instead of directing fury at a culture that has become increasingly desensitized, shameless, self-entitled, crass and crude — and the way that negatively affects just about all of us — he and other leftists fret and make a stink about inanimate objects.

Worse of all — and once again — so many on the left believe their biases stem from such a humane, wonderful, generous, tolerant, beautiful part of the human soul.

but like ALL rights, that right is subject to reasonable governmental restrictions.

Well, leftists like Obama sure as hell don’t believe that when it comes to a controversy along the lines of, say, late-term abortions. A controversy that truly is the essence of — the epitome of — life and death.

Funny, I think banning a pleading of self defense when a city bans gun possession is not a ‘reasonable restriction’. It’s denial of the right to have or use a gun for even the most urgent and necessary reasons.

But if you’re a hack for liberals ranging from democrat presidents to liberal domestic terrorists, you will not be persuaded by facts.

That lady who recently shot the man attacking her family, and emptied her revolver… she needed a high capacity magazine.

In fact, I think anyone defending themselves would need as high a capacity magazine as they could install in their firearm. Sometimes burglars bring accomplices.

This ‘no one needs’ nonsense is unrealistic and obnoxious. It also only limits the law abiding and actually frees the law breakers, as we can see in Chicago.

Imagine if the only weapons in homes were small .38s and .380s with 6 round capacities. Violent crime would go up because the proven deterrent value of home defense would go down.

Besides, Kman’s view of what ‘no one needs’ is the opposite of a rights based view. Kman, like Obama, acts like our rights come from what the government believes we need, and nothing more. That’s not how it works.

Also, the second amendment’s primary function is to deter extreme tyranny by allowing the people to have weapons of military utility. Of course those in favor of powerful government will not see any need for 30 round magazines or high calibers or semi automatic weapons. They wouldn’t have agreed with a second amendment in the first place.

Nobody ‘needs’ a political advertisement that is in color with audio. Most abortions are not ‘necessary’ to save a life. Most of us do not ‘need’ to refuse a police search when asked. We don’t ‘need’ a lawyer if the max penalty for the crime we’re charged with is less than ten years.

Kman – Unless you define what you mean by reasonable gun control and/or the problems you believe your solutions are intended to solve, how can a discussion can take place?

That’s what the discussion should be about — what is and isn’t “reasonable”.

But IMHO there’s an element to both sides who need to stay out of the discussion: (1) gun control advocates who think every gun owner is like Alex Jones and we therefore should eliminate all guns; and (2) pants-wetting paranoid gun control opponents (like Alex Jones) who think the Nobama gubmint is coming to take all their guns. You know, like Hitler and Stalin did blah blah blah.

Fortunately, I think most Americans — gun owners included — don’t fall in those categories… although sometimes you wouldn’t think so if you travel to the fringes on the Internets.

SEC. 2717 – 42USC300gg-17, says that “… None of the authorities provided to the Secretary under the (PPACA)… shall be construed to authorize of may be used for the collection of any information…”.

Does that restriction transfer to other facets of the Federal Government?
Can the DoJ do what the HHS is forbidden?
Or, would this be a “conflict” that has to be resolved by SCOTUS?
Would this be one of those “expedited cases” that go directly to The Court, or would it first have to be argued in the DC Circuit?

We can discuss that after you agree or disagree with the statement you seem to be mocking.

I said “Also, the second amendment’s primary function is to deter extreme tyranny by allowing the people to have weapons of military utility.”

Is that correct? Was the second amendment meant to provide for a military capability, or was it meant to provide for hunting and ‘only what you need’ for home defense?

Simple question.

I think once you admit or deny that we have a right to militarily relevant weapons like an AR 15 or a 30 round magazine, we can discuss why this is distinguished from a nuclear weapon. I actually have a good answer to that question and think this is an easy distinction to make.

I think your need to conflate 30 round magazines with nuclear weapons shows you aren’t interested in a reasonable discussion, but I’m happy if you can prove me wrong.

The question of militia utility of crew-served weapons has yet to be determined.
But, Stingers (anti-aircraft missiles) are not “crew served”, but are a weapon manned by an individual.
Same with some forms of anti-tank, shoulder-fired, missiles.

And, wasn’t kmart banned?
If not for violating the terms of debate, at least for felonious stupidity.

Of course a militia that doesn’t have military weapons is not ‘well regulated’ by the meaning of the second amendment. Plainly this meaning is not ‘heavy restricted by government’, but actually ‘properly equipped with what they need’.

That’s why the second amendment is worded the way it is.

It makes no sense if they meant ‘a militia with a lot of restrictions by government on their weapons is necessary to the security of a free state, so the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.’ But that’s the Kman interpretation because they have decided ‘regulated’ means gun control laws. This is how we end up with a constitution that has sweeping rights found in penumbras and interpretations, yet incredibly weak rights that were explicitly included, such as ‘the right to keep arms shall not be infringed’.

Was the second amendment meant to provide for a military capability, or was it meant to provide for hunting and ‘only what you need’ for home defense?

Simple question.

I honestly don’t think the framers made that distinction, since back then, there was no such thing as a “military”. Furthermore, there wasn’t a large distinction, destruction-wise, between weapons with a “military capability”, and weapons used for hunting/self-defense. So the answer I guess is “no” or “neither”.

“Well regulated” meant well trained, well drilled (like the useage in a “regulator clock”) in the english of the 18th and 19th C. It meant that without individual right to arms our militia would ill trained.

The Articles of Confederation prohibited IIRC a “standing army”.
The new Constitution allowed the Congress to raise and maintain an Army and Navy.
This was considered a dangerous principle, and was the impetus for the creation of the 2nd-Amendment, so that the individual citizen would have the means to resist a tyranny – one that had only recently been dealt with.

Your stupidity of historically significant matters must surely be painful -
except when you’re floating peacefully in your little bubble and not having to deal with matters of substance.

“That’s what the discussion should be about — what is and isn’t “reasonable”.”

Kman – Yes, thank you for repeating what I said. Obama beliefs complete bans are reasonable. That is obviously unconstitutional.

Want to try again and define what you mean by “reasonable” and outline the problems you are trying to solve so that the solutions can be targeted to the problems rather than just an emotive “I hate guns” we need to restrict them pearl clutch?

A fully functioning Secret Police could be considered “necessary” to the security of the state –
though I would question how “free” it would be
(Castro’s or Chavez’ definition would probably differ, we know that Lenin and Stalin, et al, considered the Soviet Union to be “free”, the lives of the proletariat wasn’t that important to them, only the Nomenklatura and apparatchiks, were somewhat important).

“This is how we end up with a constitution that has sweeping rights found in penumbras and interpretations, yet incredibly weak rights that were explicitly included, such as ‘the right to keep arms shall not be infringed’.”

Dustin – I have a copy of the Constitution living in the corner of my dining room. I bought it a litter box so it doesn’t soil the carpet.

Want to try again and define what you mean by “reasonable” and outline the problems you are trying to solve so that the solutions can be targeted to the problems rather than just an emotive “I hate guns” we need to restrict them pearl clutch?

How about solutions favored by gun owners themselves? Background checks on ALL gun purchases? Limits on magazine capacity? How’s that for starters?

I honestly don’t think the framers made that distinction, since back then, there was no such thing as a “military”. Furthermore, there wasn’t a large distinction, destruction-wise, between weapons with a “military capability”, and weapons used for hunting/self-defense. So the answer I guess is “no” or “neither”.

Comment by Kman (5576bf)

You’re saying Armies and militias didn’t exist during the American revolution? Wow. Militaries have been part of recorded history since 1274 bc. That is a weird excuse to dodge my question, albeit typical (a bold assertion of something that is obviously wrong) but I guess you answered my question anyway, so thank you for that.

You do not think this:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

is about military capability. I think the fact it is justifying my right to keep arms for “security” of a nation and to facilitate a “militia” show that this amendment is indeed meant to preserve weapons that are useful for military purposes.

Just as the first amendment is really intended to protect political speech (but protects far more than that), the second amendment is intended to protect the public’s ability to raise its own army (but protects far more than that).

Regardless, you can see now that the US Constitution says “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”. What does “shall not be infringed” mean?

If you believe in a living constitution, you may think it means nothing, and the real law is whatever those with power say. Be careful about that. That means we don’t really have a constitution, and that those who disagree with you will have unlimited power when political tides favor them. That is dangerous and unstable.

I post this whenever anyone gets confused about what ‘well-regulated’ means:

A ‘well-regulated militia’ means a well-trained militia who can move as a unit, fire to a commanded point of aim, and who will not break under fire.

You would be more familiar with the opposite term, an ‘irregular militia’. The most likely fiction you would have come across the term in is Sherlock Holmes’s books, movies, and cartoons; where he maintains what he calls the ‘Baker’s Street Irregulars.’ They are his pack of orphans and street kids whom he pays to keep him informed and whom he can marshal into a dangerous slingshot-wielding cadre at a moment’s notice. Alas, they didn’t show up in the recent Sherlock Holmes movies.

‘Irregulars’ can be dangerous troops to fight, but have a tendency to break and run. Famously, President Theodore Roosevelt fought in the American First Irregular Cavalry in his famous charge up San Juan Hill. The First Irregular Cavalry was made up of highly skilled volunteers – all famous lawmen, trackers, sharpshooters, and rangers – but because they had never had the opportunity to train together, they were called ‘Irregular Cavalry’ as opposed to ‘Well-Regulated.’

If you ever read western fiction, or histories from the Western and Civil war area, people often refer to ‘regulars’ or ‘reg’lars’ in dialect. In Disney’s The Ballad Of Davy Crockett, one line is ‘Andy Jackson is our gen’ral’s name, his reg’lar soldiers we’ll put to shame.’ A related term is ‘regulators’ which means an armed group who is trained to work together, likely to impose the will of a landowner more than a government. The Pinkertons (the first modern detective agency) maintained ‘regulators’. Stephen King has a novel out whose title, The Regulators’ refers to a Western television show inside the book where a noble posse roams the Wild West bringing law to the lawless and putting everything to order.

Currently, the army of a state is called the ‘regular army’ (you can look up ‘regular army’ on Wikipedia) while guerilla forces who may work for a state at some remove, like terrorist groups with deniable contacts or the Civilian Irregular Defense Groups trained by the Green Berets in Vietnam, are called ‘irregulars.’ Someone who has been through US Army Basic Training is called an ‘Army Regular.’

If you check Dictionary.com, the first definition is ‘to control or direct by a rule, principle, method’, the third definition is ‘to adjust so as to ensure accuracy of operation: to regulate a watch’, and the fourth definition is ‘to put in good order: to regulate the digestion.’ Obviously the meanings are related, but the ‘well-regulated militia’ in the Second Amendment pertains to the third and fourth. Justice Scalia specifically refers to these definitions in his statement in the Heller decision. Other dictionaries will have more references as to this standard use of the term and will specifically state its relation to machineguns (a ‘regulated’ machinegun uniformly shoots to the same point of aim) and militias (able to move in unison under command, will not break under fire, shoots at designated targets when commanded). I have included several references – even ones in current use today.

Obviously, in the Revolutionary War period, the United States did not have a standing army and would not for many years. A ‘well-regulated’ militia did not mean one controlled by rules from the government, but one which had drilled together and practiced with their weapons so that when they were called out, they could march to where they were needed and shoot at what they were supposed to shoot at.

I said there wasn’t a large distinction, destruction-wise. Certainly not compared to the gap today between “military weapons” and “recreational weapons”.

Tell you what kmart, what would you rather be shot with:
a 30-06 hunting rifle using a 180-grain soft-nose round;
or an AR-15, firing a 55-grain FMJ round.

Both are going to hurt, but that ’06 round will likely kill you right off as it mushrooms and starts ripping up your insides;
the FMJ round, if it doesn’t strike anything solid, is going to be a through-and through.

How about solutions favored by gun owners themselves? Background checks on ALL gun purchases? Limits on magazine capacity? How’s that for starters?

Comment by Kman (5576bf)

Basic human rights are not up to polls, Kman.

Background checks on all gun purchases seems intended to shut down private sales of guns. It generally is a euphemism for ‘government licensed dealer only’. I don’t appreciate dishonest descriptions.

If I were to sell someone a gun, I would be happy to refer to a database to ensure the person I’m selling the gun to is not known to be a violent or crazy person. However, I would seek assurance that the government is not recording such checks, so I would appreciate if this check were somehow broadened. What I envision would be a system where I could call and check before selling someone anything I think could be dangerous, or hiring them for a trusted position, and I don’t want to have to indicate why I am making the check. Thus, the government has no idea if the person being checked was buying a car or applying to hazmat school to be a truck driver.

Information on violent criminals should be public and easily obtained, so I would love easier access to that.

The magazine restriction I already explained why I oppose. There was a recent story about how a woman emptied her gun and the man attacking her family was still alive. Had he had an accomplice she would have died. Large capacity magazines are of obvious utility to self defense, practicing marksmanship, and the actual purpose of the second amendment. Restricting them is a blatant infringing of the right to keep and bear arms, and thus requires a constitutional amendment.

But Kman, you said these were “solutions”. What are the solutions to? The rare massacres are committed by people who steal weapons or would never have been on the database. Criminals are able to obtain fully automatic weapons without following the legal process. Your solution only makes the law abiding less safe, and also makes those attacking the law abiding more safe.

What is this a solution to? I can only think of one thing: the political needs of those who want to exploit tragedy to garner nanny headlines.

Drop the emotion for a second and think about this. The only thing that would have actually prevented the recent tragedy would have been either ending the gun free zone or making it very secure with armed guards. We need to democratize security.

How about background checks on all computer purchasers?
Limits on hard-drive and RAM sizes?
Then we can start on approved versions of the King James Bible.

Comment by askeptic (b8ab92) — 1/10/2013

I think that’s an apt comparison.

Should we require a criminal background check before someone can use a computer or get on the internet? Should we approve ‘appropriate’ bandwidths… what you ‘need’? I don’t think these solutions would solve anything. Criminals on the internet are going to disobey these rules, so they would only hassle the law abiding.

Drop the emotion for a second and think about this. The only thing that would have actually prevented the recent tragedy would have been either ending the gun free zone or making it very secure with armed guards.

Nobody realistically expects to be able to prevent another Newtown or Aurora or Virginia Tech, etc.

But for some reason, some people think that since we can’t guarantee 100% success, we shouldn’t to anything.

Listen, putting psudofed behind the counters didn’t prevent ALL meth labs from carrying on, but it helped to cut meth use by 40% in some states. Again, the goal is to make things BETTER. What exactly is your objection to that?

kmart, we can end this the same way the Israeli’s ended terror-attacks on schools there – by allowing those members of the staff who volunteer, to carry arms after suitable training.
Thugs will not attack ATBE a hardened target, they really like the low-hanging fruit, because they essentially are cowards.

side bar: if we subtract out all the shooting deaths where the dead person was a criminal shot in the act, how many firearms deaths are left, and what does that do to the overall rate for the US versus those paragons of gun control?

Kman, are you not even familiar with the talking point you are parroting?

This ‘background checks for all gun sales’ are intended to close the ‘gun show loophole’ by preventing private citizens from selling guns to other private citizens. The mechanism for the ‘database’ is not me, a private citizen, making a check of another before selling a gun. It is a government licensed dealer.

You called my summary paranoid, but it is the actual proposal. It’s even the actual law in many places, such as the State of Maryland.

The ‘how’ is often ignored my democrats when they say what they want. The ‘how’ for background checks is to require a government licensed dealer to facilitate the transaction.

And again, your solution wouldn’t have prevented a single mass shooting, yet you say it’s the solution. It’s as though you aren’t sincere or something.

Not all of them. And those that do are usually next to someplace without much gun control.

Great Britain is an island, Kman.

What are the top ten developed countries for violent crime?

Why exclude them, since we are a democracy? In fact, THE democracy (as far as I’m concerned)?

I would exclude places with high gun control and the lion’s share of America’s gun violence from your analysis of the effect lower gun control has on violence because that is a more honest way to evaluate how unsafe places with less gun control are, obviously. I would rather compare Chicago with Kansas than lump them together.

You want to say nationalizing Chicago’s tough gun laws will reduce gun violence and solve mass shootings, but the facts prove you wrong. I don’t want to live in a place with Chicago’s gun laws because they would lead to more violence.

The ban on private sales that is in effect in several states is ineffective. It is easily circumvented by criminals and often violated unintentionally by innocent gun owners confused by already far too complex firearms laws.

We should ban all weapons whatsoever within 5 miles of a school or govt building. And ban all weapons that exceed the capability of military weapons available at the time of the writing of the Constitution.

What I envision would be a system where I could call and check before selling someone anything I think could be dangerous, or hiring them for a trusted position,

The civil liberties people would get all upset about that, especially if you didn’t need to have any kind of a reason for asking about someone, or maybe even, their permission. Victim’s rights people might perhaps support it.

If anything like that came to pass, it probably would be accompanied by efforts to ensure that the data base was kept lean and accurate, and not at all like the TSA’s “no-fly” list. When it’s guns, a lot of people don’t really care.

and I don’t want to have to indicate why I am making the check.

For instance you might want to check out someone you, or a friend, was interested in dating.

Thus, the government has no idea if the person being checked was buying a car or applying to hazmat school to be a truck driver.

Or a possible witness in a lawsuit.

Lawyers could use that to screen potential jurors – sometimes they might want people with problems.

People interested in overcharging people or even swindling them might look for people who might not make credible witnesses.

You want to say nationalizing Chicago’s tough gun laws will reduce gun violence and solve mass shootings, but the facts prove you wrong. I don’t want to live in a place with Chicago’s gun laws because they would lead to more violence.

You assume that the guns used in Chicago are guns that come from thwarting the gun laws there. The problem is that you can go half an hour from Chicago to someplace that doesn’t have those laws, and legally get access to a gun that you couldn’t get access to under Chicago laws. Hence, the need for nationalization. That will address part of the problem.

Chicago is also unique in that, unlike NY (which also has strict gun laws), you have a serious gang problem, which makes it an outlier. And that also needs to be addressed, separate and apart from gun laws.

But to say that gun control laws CAUSE more gun violence — that’s simply not borne out by the facts.

The civil liberties people would get all upset about that, especially if you didn’t need to have any kind of a reason for asking about someone, or maybe even, their permission. Victim’s rights people might perhaps support it.

Well, I guess I would need to me a little more specific about the database.

I don’t think it’s a violation of civil liberties to publicly shame criminals.

Lawyers could use that to screen potential jurors – sometimes they might want people with problems.

Anyone so bad I wouldn’t sell them a gun should also be barred from voting or serving on a jury.

I guess the problem is that I don’t see to punish those with severe mental illness, but they also shouldn’t vote or serve on juries in my opinion.

Regardless, my problem with the ‘we need universal background checks’ is that the ‘how’ is to require all gun sales to go through dealers, democrat style. Thus, the solution isn’t really ‘universal background checks’ at all. That’s a dishonest euphemism for ‘ban on private sales’.

I do think this is what democrats soon will propose, and that we will see an awful lot of dodging of the ‘how’ for as long as possible. We will also see repeat demonstrations of what Kman is doing here by ignoring all the people proving that his solution wouldn’t prevent the recent mass shooting (where guns were obtained by theft).

“He’s never been the darling of the gun control crowd, and with good reason.”

Kman – Don’t you mean as President, Barack “I hate guns” Obama has never been a darling of the gun control crown? After telling Eric Holder to STFU about gun control in February 2009, he has been pretty quiet, but his history in Chicago was anything but quiet. Facts are stubborn things except to those on the left.

The magazine restriction I already explained why I oppose. There was a recent story about how a woman emptied her gun and the man attacking her family was still alive.

She was firing too fast to aim.

I would agree large capacity magazines would be of some use in practicing marksmanship, at least when beginning, the way a pitching machine is better than a human pitcher, but it’s a rather limited use, and ranchers in Montana have a use for it when trying to scare away small animals. Very few things are really totally without legitimate (or non-criminal) uses, but it might make sense to balance the gains against the losses.

Today the New York Times had a letter from somebody in Texas who wrote that he destroyed his large capacity magazine.

My own personal and immediate reaction, [to the Sandy Hook massacre] though, was to take a large-capacity ammo clip and pound it down with a hammer. My ranch rifle works fine without it, and it was stupid to have. I don’t need it, and I don’t think anyone does.

If that makes any sense at all, I guess it’s the fear that eventually, maybe after he is dead, that magazine could be used by somebody to kill a lot of people at one time, and he couuldn’t think of any way it could help someone, so better just destroy it.

Of this high number of gun homicides in the United States many involve people who need to be shot, as they are shot while engaged in a criminal act likely to cause a reasonable person to fear for their life or for the life of another, which is the generally accepted threshold for the use of lethal force, at least among intelligent people.

I feel the need to mention that in the American Revolutionary war, the colonists had BETTER weapons than the Redcoats.

The Redcoats had the British Brown Bess musket, while the colonists had whatever came to hand.. and part of what came to hand was the Kentucky Long Rifle. It was slower than the Brown Bess, but far more accurate over longer ranges and came to be feared by the british. As the Revolutionary War went on, General Washington’s forces got more and more troops armed with the Kentucky Long Rifle.

So in fact, the Second Amendment guarantees that we the people should have BETTER weapons than those carried by the military.

How would regulating private sales have stopped Sandy Hook? How would limiting capacity to 8, 10, or 15 hav stopped it? How would the BS gun show loophole closure have stopped it? How did that gun free zone help?

You first said you wanted to prevent mass shootings. Then you used Taft HS as evidence that an armed guard wouldn’t prevent such a shooting. But Taft HS wasn’t a mass shooting. You’re moving the goal posts.

Sammy, why do you do that? You just made an assumption and presented it as though it was something you actually know. The truth is that this woman showed excellent marksmanship. As Daleyrocks said, she hit him five times.

I believe he had multiple hits in his face.

What if he had brought two accomplices?

The necessity of high capacity magazines is pretty clear, isn’t it? Why use a little revolver for home defense? A small woman will be more accurate with a carbine. That’s a lot easier to learn how to accurately shoot than a pistol. Accuracy is safety. ‘Assault weapons’ are simply better at self defense than revolvers.

When progressives tell me they don’t think I need this or that, I think “I need the best I can get, thank you very much”.

Again, how do you know?

Comment by Kman (5576bf)

Lanza stole his guns. The other shooters were not on lists. Thugs in democrat enclaves are buying from the black market.

How would regulating private sales have stopped Sandy Hook? How would limiting capacity to 8, 10, or 15 hav stopped it? How would the BS gun show loophole closure have stopped it? How did that gun free zone help?

That’s not what I asked. You said that my proposals wouldn’t prevent ANY mass shooting. You said it would prevent 0%. Are you suggesting that all mass shooting will have the same characteristics as Sandy Hook?

Dustin: The rare massacres are committed by people who steal weapons or would never have been on the database.

Because the gun checks already stop people from buying them legally.

But there is another way besides stealing or not being in the database.

The killing of the firemen in West Webster, New York was done by someone who had persuaded a 24 year old female neighbor (born 1988) to buy a Bushmaster .223-caliber rifle for him.

He had murdered his grandmother in 1980 by beating her to death. (She was 92, that is born in 1888)

He didn’t get out on parole until 1998, on his second try, and remained on parole until about 2006. He went to live with his mother.

He would claim to people he killed his grandmother because he was a drug addict and she wouldn’t give him money for drugs, but now he wasn’t a drug addict any more.

His living situation was a time bomb with a long fuse.

His older unmarried sister (born in 1945) also lived there. They didn’t get along. She lived in the same house, but had a separate entrance. He stayed with his elderly mother.

After many many years, in 2012, his mother died, at the age of 91 or 92 when the murderer was 62 years old. (They were born therefore in 1920 and 1950, respectively)

Now the fuse was lit.

There was some problem or dispute about the inheritance. Possibly he faced eviction.

He killed his sister and kept it secret (a few hours, a day, a week, I don’t know)

Then he decided to commit suicide and kill some more people. He lit a fire, burning down the house (with his sister’s body in it), and murdered two firemen (and shot others) who came to fight the fire, and then killed himself. He left behind a piece of writing that said the thing he liked doing best was killing people.

“I still have to get ready to see how much of the neighborhood I can burn down and do what I like doing best — killing people,”

Apparently the conservatives aren’t supposed to know about this yet, and if we say this is a proposal we are accused of being paranoid

It’s been a “proposal” since Newtown. Again, Dustin, it’s not about banning guns or even about banning private gun sales. It’s about regulating private gun sales (or should I say “well-regulating” them?) So tell your conservative friends to put down The Turner Diaries and chill out, okay?

Not at all, since the shooter’s mother bought them all from stores, as far as anyone knows. What might have helped, is requiring a dozen people to vouch for her. That might have initiated some discussion about making sure the guns weren’t stolen or something. Maybe all gunowners should be required to be a member of some club.

How would limiting capacity to 8, 10, or 15 have stopped it?

It might have limited the size of the massacre.

Even at 30 rounds it still might have been less, if Adam Lanza hadn’t adopted a tactic he learned from video games.

Experienced players of video games know always to make sure their guns are fully loaded when they enter a “room.”

Adam Lanza discarded magazines before they were finished. One magazine had 15 bullets left in it. He switched magazines when he had some space to himself, not while he was shooting, not when it would give others an opportunity to escape or even overpower him. Police spent a wek in that school trying to trace the path of every bullet. Adam Lanza fired off maybe 150 bullets.

How would the BS gun show loophole closure have stopped it? How did that gun free zone help?

The politicians and lobbyists go in a lot for gimmicks. That doesn’t that you couldn’t think of something that might actually reduce the probability, without even stopping anybody else from doing much.

[we need to] “really brainwash people to think about guns in a vastly different way.”

[...]

make it something that’s not cool, that it’s not acceptable, it’s not hip to carry a gun anymore, in the way in which we’ve changed our attitudes about cigarettes. You know, when I was growing up, people smoked all the time. Both my parents did. But over time, we changed the way that people thought about smoking, so now we have people who cower outside of buildings and kind of smoke in private and don’t want to admit it.

Wow. Us gun nuts sure are paranoid about the Obama administration’s attitude about gun ownership.

It’s been a “proposal” since Newtown. Again, Dustin, it’s not about banning guns or even about banning private gun sales. It’s about regulating private gun sales (or should I say “well-regulating” them?) So tell your conservative friends to put down The Turner Diaries and chill out, okay?

Comment by Kman (5576bf)

As I already showed you, the State of Maryland requires all gun sales to go through a proper, government licensed dealer. They call that ‘regulating’ sales too. But it’s a ban on private sales.

You are simply being a sophist.

that your solution wouldn’t have prevented the tragedy you claim you are trying to solve, and that you describe what you are proposing dishonestly, and that you call it paranoia to accurately describe proposals… all that makes me suspect you are not being very sincere.

You, like Holder, want to demonize gun ownership, delegitimize it, encumber it with hassles and government created additional expense. You oppose gun ownership itself. That’s what your solution actually does.

We were disappointed with how little this meeting had to do with keeping our children safe and how much it had to do with an agenda to attack the Second Amendment. While claiming that no policy proposals would be “prejudged,” this Task Force spent most of its time on proposed restrictions on lawful firearms owners – honest, taxpaying, hardworking Americans.

Gun control enthusiasts like to incrementally make gun ownership more and more costly and difficult.

That’s what Kman’s proposal is meant to do, and that’s what your proposal would do as well.

A battered domestic violence victim who is staying under the radar, or just someone who wants peace of mind in his home… does not have to impress you with a dozen people vouching for her. She was born with the basic human right to defend herself and has every right to the weapon she needs to purchase.

Those like Kman who propose trading freedom for a false sense of security are either misguided or not being sincere in their goals.

“Because the gun checks already stop people from buying them legally.”

Dustin – It took the Illinois State Police more than a month to process my application for a Firearms Owner Identification Card this past Fall. Less than six weeks later I had to pay for a new background check and wait three days before picking up a hand gun purchase from an Illinois dealer. I guess the logic is I could have committed a felony or gone crazy in the intervening six weeks.

Kman – Absolutely, because if we regulate them, criminals will follow the regulations, right.

Not all, but there is such a thing as deterrence. If you lower the speed limit, you have less accidents. If you put pseudofedrine behind the CVS counter, you have fewer meth labs. This is common sense, and it applies (and works) in every area of law enforcement. But somehow, when it comes to gun violence, you have people floating the specious argument that, “You can’t stop it 100%, so why do anything at all?”

SPQR:

Okay. Fair enough. I’m not up on my “literature” — I thought The Turner Diaries was about an uprising against a tyrannical U.S. government — which it is — and I forgot about the racial component. So to that extent, I apologize.

It took the Illinois State Police more than a month to process my application for a Firearms Owner Identification Card this past Fall. Less than six weeks later I had to pay for a new background check and wait three days before picking up a hand gun purchase from an Illinois dealer. I guess the logic is I could have committed a felony or gone crazy in the intervening six weeks.

Comment by daleyrocks (bf33e9)

Wow.

I really don’t fully appreciate what I have. Last time I purchased a gun, it was an impulse decision because the price was great. I had the gun loaded and in an IWB holster at my side twenty minutes after I decided I would like to buy it (and lawfully).

The town I live in has an incredibly low violent crime rate. The Chicago area, of course, is not as fortunate.

But I am pretty sure you’re a peaceful person who has never committed any crimes other than perhaps speeding on the highway. And not only are you being treated to huge waits, but they are redundant and costly.

I think we can see what the point of that is when we see Eric Holder’s attitude. Kman and Holder aren’t trying to solve mass shootings. They are trying to socially engineer us by encumbering the law abider’s gun ownership as much as possible.

That’s why liberals keep outing registered gun owners. They want to shame them if they can, so those who are considering a gun purchase and respect the law will think twice.

It’s not about solving mass shootings. It’s about ‘solving’ conservative views on gun ownership. As we can see from Kman’s comments, a 30 round magazine is like a nuclear weapon, and supporting unregulated gun sales is like reading the Turner Diaries.

You are asking for people to seek approval who they give or sell their weapons too.

True dat, but by the same token, if I want to have a parade down Main Street (expression of First Amendment), I still have to get a permit from the local government. Registering guns isn’t any greater a burden.

Of course, the democrat party initially sought gun control laws to disarm freed slaves and black republicans.

But I think he means that since gun control is so closely associated with lots of gun violence (see DC and Chicago), it’s unfortunate if the reason democrats are ok with this is because the people dying are so often minorities. This reminds me a lot of Planned Parenthood’s racist and eugenic original initiative. I am, of course, speaking tongue in cheek.

I think we can see what the point of that is when we see Eric Holder’s attitude. Kman and Holder aren’t trying to solve mass shootings. They are trying to socially engineer us by encumbering the law abider’s gun ownership as much as possible.

But I think he means that since gun control is so closely associated with lots of gun violence (see DC and Chicago), it’s unfortunate if the reason democrats are ok with this is because the people dying are so often minorities

That’s right. I’m for gun control because I hate black people. That’s true of all the lefties. You broke our code. Because it’s the minorities that die more from gun violence, so gun control means less gun violence, which means… wait, what the hell are you blabbering about?

As an example of “reasonable” gun control, Massachusetts some years ago initiated the requirement of firearms owners obtaining a firearms card, that was good “for life”. Then later, they required the card to be renewed. People who did not realize the law had changed – their cards specifically had no expiration date – were nonetheless prosecuted for having an “expired” firearms card.

I love how it flits back and forth, conflating topics. Regulating/banning private sales is not the same thing as a registry. Why would I need the federal government’s approval to give a gun to my children, at the appropriate time? Why would I need their approval to sell a gun to my next door neighbor?

I’ll pass on the registry. But we already know what you and the media and the rest of the Left thinks of this.

Look at what they are willing to do to an explicitly spelled out RIGHT in the freakin BILL OF RIGHTS, but get the vapors if you ask someone for an ID when they vote, or want to get parental notification much less consent for medical procedures, or regulate late term abortions.

Ironically, the ATF is actually promulgating a new rule on NFA items to remove several restrictions including the previous requirement for individuals to obtain a chief law enforcement officer signoff (which wasn’t required of corporations etc. that were licensing NFA firearms).

To the Left, there are rights to things paid for by other people, like health insurance, but actual Rights spelled out in the Bill of Rights are subject to different standards. Any restriction they would place on the 2nd Amendment should be reasonable for the 1st as well.

redc1c4 – Obama can have his killer drones monitor the domestic gun seizure and use Hellfire missiles to quell any resistance. Sounds like the unpublicized test run in Clinger went without serious problems.

Given the current environment, serious gun enthusiasts might want to consider moving to the Arctic where it is becoming warm enough to live year round without incurring significant costs for heating and while there are still a few polar bears left to hunt for food.

Being tired of this discussion, and the many inaccuracies thrown onto this page,
I just have one challenge for some of our resident Know-It-All’s from the Left (which includes you SF):

How many of you have actually purchased a firearm from an FFL?
Do yourself a favor, go to your nearest gun-shop, and ask to fill out a Form 4473.
Ask that dealer how much informal info he is told to gather by the ATF from the customer that is not contained on the 4473.
Ask him if he has the authority to not proceed with a sale just because he “has a bad feeling”.
Then tell me that gun-sales are unregulated.

Oh, in the case of Chicago, most of those killings within the city are thug-on-thug crime –
Killings committed with a gun by people who are legally forbidden to have a gun, or the ammunition that it uses.
So, if they go outside Chicago to purchase that gun from a gun dealer, they are committing another felony when they lie on the 4473 that they are legally entitled to own a gun
(it’s a question – along with “have you ever been convicted of a felony – have you ever been adjudicated as a danger to yourself or others – are you addicted to controlled substances”).
Answer yes to most of the questions on a 4473, and you don’t get to buy a gun legally.

Ask him if he has the authority to not proceed with a sale just because he “has a bad feeling”.

Yes, he does. It is not considered any kind of discrimination, and they may be encouraged to do so. I have read how if someone comes in, usually a man and a woman, and the woman is officially buying the gun, but the man seems to be picking it out, and so on, they will turn it the sale down because they suspect a straw buyer.

But this is exactly Mayor Bloomberg’s complaint against certain gun stores. Because some gun sores are notorious for allowing straw buyers. Guns later used in crimes may disproportionately come from a few stores.

The NRA does not like tracing guns to stores where they came from to be very easy. Because the next thing is, they’ll be sued.

Mayor Bloomberg, in fact, has sued gun dealers on the grounds they were not careful enough. That is, because they did not do what you say.

The lawsuit proceeded anyway, because the city tried to argue its claim was not covered or something, but in 2008 an appellate court ruled against the city of New York.

Now that’s one thing Biden might want to propose be changed, but this is almost a technical issue, and, most likely, he won’t touch that, because allowing gun manufacturers to be sued for allowing their guns to be sold by stores that weren’t careful enough might easily turn the gun industry into the asbestos industry. Their liability insurance would rise to the sky, they’d risk bankruptcy and probably have to shut down.

Maybe they’d get special protection from Congress if they sold only to police departments.

So you are right, most gun stores do what you say, but some don’t, and Congress has protected them.

Of course there was Fast and Furious and similar “investigations” where the stores that routinely allowed straw buyers to buy guns were known to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, and this was allowed to continue, supposedly in order to catch “bigger fish.”

Oh, in the case of Chicago, most of those killings within the city are thug-on-thug crime –
Killings committed with a gun by people who are legally forbidden to have a gun, or the ammunition that it uses.

The people who want new laws are trying (at least in theory) to create legal architecture that will make it more difficult for such people to get a gun, not to make it more against the law.

Now the “gun show loophole” is not much of a factor, because the straw buyer loophole is much easier to use.

There is no such thing as a “gun show loophole” and there especially is no such thing as a “straw buyer loophole” because straw purchases are crimes. More of your inventions, Sammy.

And in Operation Fast & Furious, there were gun stores who had no interest in straw buyers at all, who in fact reported them to the ATF but were told to make the sales in spite of their resistance, Sammy.

235. While I’ve consistently underestimated the audacity of dope, confiscation of semi-automatics will be viewed an act of war.

Squads will have to work outside their own states for the sake of their families. People will be shot or arrested for photos of sweeps. When a grunt shoots his first civilian over a lousy .306 with a scope they’ll desert in droves.

About 48 hours in the life expectancy of an officer will be about 2 weeks.

Form 4473 (for Sammy’s benefit – though I doubt if it will do any good):

#11 Answer questions 11.a through 11.l…..
a. Are you the actual trasferee/buyer of the firearm(s) listed on this form?
b. Are ou under indictment or information in any court for a felony, or any other crime, for which the judge could imprison you for more than one year?
c. Have you ever been convicted in any court of a felony, or any other crime, for which the judge could have imprisoned you for more than one year, even if you received a shorter sentence including probation?
d. Are you a fugitive from justice?
e. Are you an unlawful user of, or addicted to, marijuana or any depressant, stimulant, narcotic drug, or any other controlled substance?
f. Have you ever been adjudicated mentally defective (which includes a determination by a court, board, commission, or other lawful authority that you are a danger to yourself or tho others or are incompetent to manage your own affairs) OR have you ever been committed to a mental institution?
g. Have you been discharged from the Armed Forces under dishonorable conditions?
h. Are you subject to a court order restraining you from harassing, stalking, or threatening your child or an intimate partner or child of such partner?
i. Have you ever been convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence?
j. Have you ever renounced your United States citizenship?
k. Are you an alien illegally in the United States?
l. Are you an alien admitted to the United States under a nonimmigrant visa?

I certify that my answers to Section A are true and complete. I have read and understand the Notices, Instructions, and Definitions on ATF Form 4473. I understand that answering “yes” to question 11.a if I am not the actual buyer is a crime punishable as a felony under Federal law, and may also violate State and or local law. I understand that a person who answers “yes” to questions 11.b through 11.k is prohibited from purchasing or receiving a firearm…I also understand that making any false oral or written statement, or exhibiting any false or misrepresented identification with respect to this transaction, is a crime punishable as a felony under Federal law, and may also violate State and/or local law…”

(emphasis in original)
ATF Form 4473 (5300.9) Part 1, Revised April 2012

Yes, just another loophole….though, here in CA I have to get a right thumb print from whomever submits it, so that they can’t in the future say “It wasn’t me” when they come to arrest them for a straw-purchase, or perjury, or whatever.

Sammy, back in the day Billy Jeff decided that, going forward, all ex-Presidents would only receive 10 years of SS protection. Starting right after him, of course. This new law re-instates life-long protection for Barry and Bush 43 and all future presidents, as I believe it should.
However, the timing, as Barry works to take away my guns, is a little tone deaf. Especially, as it is moot for another 4 years.

hey askeptic! if your shop is anywhere in the greater LA area, drop Pat a note or add “@drunkenbastardsDOTorg” to my nick, and i’ll talk Resident Evil into coming buy and seeing if you have anything left to sell.

You only need a parade permit if you’re going to walk on the road and block traffic. You always have the right to walk together on the footpath, holding signs and shouting or singing, without any notice to anybody. So the equivalent with guns would be requiring a permit to set up a shooting range on a public street; and guess what, that’s already required, and in fact is probably impossible to get, and nobody on the right objects to this. So you can take that strawman away and burn it.

Of course there was Fast and Furious and similar “investigations” where the stores that routinely allowed straw buyers to buy guns were known to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, and this was allowed to continue, supposedly in order to catch “bigger fish.”

Say what?! Are you on drugs, or do you live in some alternative universe where this happened? Those dealers reported their suspicions, and were ordered to make the sales.

Now that’s one thing Biden might want to propose be changed, but this is almost a technical issue, and, most likely, he won’t touch that, because allowing gun manufacturers to be sued for allowing their guns to be sold by stores that weren’t careful enough might easily turn the gun industry into the asbestos industry. Their liability insurance would rise to the sky, they’d risk bankruptcy and probably have to shut down.

Speaking of which, here’s a question for y’all: I remember reading a few years ago that gun manufacturers were small businesses that didn’t make much money and were constantly on the verge of bankruptcy, which is why a successful lawsuit could bring them down. That’s why Congress protected them. But recently I’ve read that they’re doing well enough that pension funds and hedge funds are invested in them. What gives? Has everything changed in the last few years?